Rebellion

Government spokespersons have announced that rebellion raps will be filed against Nur Misuari and some leaders of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). They conveniently tagged Misuari’s group as a faction of the MNLF despite of the fact that nobody in the MNLF has tried to contradict or disavow the action of the group. Perhaps a deliberate effort to make the incident appear as an isolated armed assault by a faction of the MNLF, the tag does not describe well in a conspiracy of silence among the other leaders of the Moro armed group.

Compared with arson, murder or torture, rebellion is more reputable as it implies some political sense. In times when the government is plagued with corruptions and accused of neglecting the welfare of its people, rebellion ceased to be a shameful crime. At other times, rebels are hailed as heroes because they take direct political action when others are shamefully silent on the political injustices perpetrated by the government. Somehow the charge of rebellion implies some moral justification for the action of its perpetrators.

Rebellion is also a convenient excuse for atrocities committed by its perpetrators. Rebellion absorbs all violent crimes committed on its occasion or pursuant to the same. Arsons and murders may not be prosecuted separately from rebellion; they are to be proved as integral element thereof. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases in the past.

             Despite of the seeming logic of this principle, critics are unconvinced of its utility. Prosecuting perpetrators for rebellion means that the government has to let go of the killings and destruction that they have committed. The killings and the destructions committed by rebels would become a mere component of the crime of rebellion. This means that perpetrators have to account only for rebellion whose penalty is lower than the penalty for arson or murder.

The penalty for rebellion is not the supreme penalty under the Revised Penal Code. Only leaders of rebellion face a prison term of twenty years and one day to forty years, which is actually lesser than life imprisonment. Their followers face only a maximum of twenty-year prison term and enjoy the right to post bail for their provisional liberties.

Rebellion is not easy to prosecute also. Showing that an armed group encamped in a barangay and killed members of the security forces that attempted to flush them out would not be sufficient. Motive should be proven even if jurisprudence tells that motive is not an element of a crime. Since rebellion is a political crime, proof must be adduced showing the political motive of the offender to overthrow the government or to remove allegiance to the government any part of the Philippine territory. Certainly, a declaration by the perpetrators that they went to the place to conduct a peace rally does not show the political motive needed to nail them for rebellion. Government prosecutors must adduce more evidence to establish the necessary motive.

And finally, no claim for damages or compensation may be made by victims against the accused in rebellion. There is no civil liability to speak of in rebellion because the crime is deemed committed against the public order. Claimants become faceless participants in a play where the State is trying to pin down a group of scoundrels who used armed violence to challenge its authority. Victims of atrocities are left in the margin waiting their turn to be called to trial so that they can identify the perpetrators and make a detail narration of their harrowing experiences. Sadly, their services would be terminated without any compensation or any sign of gratitude from the State which purport to represent their interest in the trial.